https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294440 The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a debt from the defendant. The trial court and lower appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendant liable for the debt. The defendant argued the suit was time-barred, but the courts held that an express promise to pay in the agreement allowed enforcement under Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872. The second appeal was dismissed, establishing legal clarity on acknowledging debt and enforcing time-barred debts. en-us Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:59:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294440 The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a debt from the defendant. The trial court and lower appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendant liable for the debt. The defendant argued the suit was time-barred, but the courts held that an express promise to pay in the agreement allowed enforcement under Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872. The second appeal was dismissed, establishing legal clarity on acknowledging debt and enforcing time-barred debts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294440